Australia to levy carbon tax

Science deals in facts, models, ideas, predictions, probability........... but not proof.

 

LOL your source is awesome...lol bugs you are a funny person.

 

Science can prove a great many things bud. There is not enough PROOF that this is the right thing to do.

 

No - Labors plan is to implement a price on carbon that will be paid by the biggest polluters. There will of course be some trickle down effect


The Liberals however want to use taxpayers money (A GREAT BIG TAX) that we will ALL have to pay to PAY the big polluters

According to a senior Liberal Shadow Minister - Tony Abbott's direct action plan could cost taxpayers $18 billion a year by 2050

Why is this better than a market mechanism? Are you a Communist or something?

 

No, science can prove nothing. Proof isn't part of any scientific method.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApCwoj35d3M"]Julia Gillard no carbon tax promise - YouTube[/ame]

 

Could you tell us what science has "proved" and show us the proof?

 

So using scientific methods we can not PROVE what the air is made up of?

 

Nope, just "suggest" to a high degree of certainty but stopping short of proof.

 

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Grattan Institute are awesome?!?! Whatever floats your boat.

Or are you referring to a senior Liberal Shadow Minister?

Either way - yes - sources are "awesome"! Why don't you try using one for once instead of just making things up.


BTW:
Why is taxing everyone and paying polluters a better idea than a market based mechanism to make polluters pay?

Why can't you answer this?

 

The labor carbon tax makes EVERYONE pay, will push up prices on a whole range of things and will drive jobs overseas...yeah your right bugs is a good tax..

 

Let me help you out there Champ:

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
...
The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

No, you are being dishonest.

Labors plan is to implement a price on carbon that will be paid by the biggest polluters. There will of course be some trickle down effect

The Liberals however want to use taxpayers money that we will ALL have to pay to PAY the big polluters.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Grattan Institute have reviewed competitive grant schemes in Australia and found that they:
• Take far longer to achieve their objectives than originally planned
• Achieve much less than expected
• Cost far more than was budgeted.
https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node/19&pubid=878&act=display

Why is this better than a market mechanism?
Why can't you explain.

 

Once you can PROVE that a carbon tax is needed then i will be all to happy to debate how it should be implemented.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crkTPDQlnUc"]Julia Gillard Penny Wong Wayne Swan NO CARBON TAX ? Or just drunk's regret - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_KVBwKU7B8&feature=related"]Senator Penny Wong criticises the carbon tax - YouTube[/ame]

 

Nice work! When all else fails - run away in a little denialist hissy fit!

You wrote:

Why is using taxpayers money to pay polluters better than a market mechanism that makes polluters pay?

Why can't you explain?

And why is the Liberals scheme "better" - when when you are asked to explain - you sit the dummy and deny that there is even a problem at all?

Do you have any idea at all what you are talking about?

 

happy to debate the pros and cons of carbon tax ONCE to PROVE your claims...

 

A "carbon tax" isn't "needed".

What is needed is to reduce carbon emissions. This is needed because carbon emissions in the atmosphere are increasing the amount of thermal radiation being directed back to earth.

It has been shown by the US Acid Rain program that emissions trading can be successful in reducing pollution, and most economists consider that competitive grant schemes such as the Liberals suggest would be far more expensive and far less useful.

Alan Jones is really not an expert on anything. You would be wise to ignore him.

 

You wrote:

Are you now admitting that you don't believe that at all - you were just mindlessley parrotting Liberal talking points?

Why would you do that?

 

and it has been shown by the failure of carbon trading schemes that the idea is not much more than a farce..
Again bugs will be happy to debate the tax AFTER you PROVE a carbon tax will
a/clean up the worlds environment
b/ lower the worlds temps

 

Has it really!

Please show some evidence

 

So - can we just get this straight. When you wrote:

You were just lying. Is that right?

You don't think the libs direct action plan is by far a better way to go at all.

You simply deny the problem even exists.

Is this correct?

 

the public think the libs direct action plan is the better way to go...as can be seen by the polls.

 

So, I am right aren't I. You simply deny the problem even exists don't you. But are spouting Liberal propaganda that you don't even believe in.

Why would you do that?

I understand that blokes like Jones and Bolt make a lot of money by stirring up the less educated people of society by making them frightened of scientists and such. But why would you come on here spruiking a Liberal policy you completely disagree with?